IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF OHIO

EASTERN DIVISION

D'Nanakai Carrigan-Terrell,

Plaintiff

 v.

Gary Mohr, et al.,

Defendants

:

:

:

:

:

Civil Action 2:12-cv-00215

Judge Frost

Magistrate Judge Abel

Report and Recommendation

Plaintiff D'Nanakai Carrigan-Terrell, a State prisoner at the Ohio Reformatory for

Women (“ORW”), brings this action under 42 U.S.C. § 1983. This matter is before the

Magistrate Judge on the State of Ohio and defendants Genine Trim, Dr. Suseela Nalluri,

Dr. Christy Tinch, Dr. Edmund Burke, Erin Maldonado, Bethany Ritter, and Dr. Sheila

Tano’s April 19, 2013 motion for summary judgment (doc. 34). 

I. Allegations in the Complaint

The complaint alleges that around June 2010 plaintiff was told to go to the

Residential Treatment Unit to see Dr. Welch. But when she got to the Unit, she was

forcibly placed in a cell and made to undergo a psychological evaluation. She was

forced to remain in the cell 24 hours a day for about 4 days. Then she was required to

live in the Residential Treatment Unit. The complaint also alleges that after plaintiff had

1

Case: 2:12-cv-00215-GLF-MRA Doc #: 41 Filed: 07/26/13 Page: 1 of 10 PAGEID #: <pageID>
been off psychotropic medicine for five months, Dr. Nalluri requested a mandatory

medication hearing for her. 

On September 7, plaintiff was given another mandatory medication hearing at

the request of defendants Dr. Nalluri, Dr. Tano, Dr. Tench, and Nurse Maldonado. Dr.

Nalluri lied, stating that plaintiff was assaultive, suicidal, and neglectful of her personal

hygiene. Defendants Dr. Nalluri, Dr. Tano, Dr. Tench, and Nurse Riter did not let

plaintiff attend the first hearing, even though she was competent to do so. Nurse Riter

was supposed to be plaintiff’s liaison, but she favored defendants. 

On appeal, defendants Dr. Burke and Mr. Nicastro denied plaintiff the right to

call witnesses and upheld the initial hearing decision to require plaintiff to take

medication. The medication, which has unpleasant side effects, was administered to

punish plaintiff. Dr. Burke denied plaintiff’s appeal; and Warden Jennie Trim never

responded to her appeal. Plaintiff seeks to be removed from mandatory medications.

II. Arguments of the Parties

A. The State of Ohio and Defendants

Defendants argue that the record demonstrates that plaintiff suffers from a

serious mental illness and that defendants provided her with all the due process to

which she was entitled in making the decision to administer involuntary psychotropic

medication. Defendants maintain that plaintiff posed a serious threat of harm to herself,

others and property and refused to take psychotropic medication to treat her illness. As

2

Case: 2:12-cv-00215-GLF-MRA Doc #: 41 Filed: 07/26/13 Page: 2 of 10 PAGEID #: <pageID>
a result, Dr. Nalluri, plaintiff’s treating psychiatrist since 1998, made three involuntary

medication requests to treat plaintiff with psychotropic medication. 

Pursuant to ODRC Policy 67-MNH-07, ORW formed a committee known as an

Involuntary Medication Committee (“IMC”) to determine whether it was appropriate to

administer plaintiff medication. The IMC consisted of a psychiatrist, psychologist, and a

licensed independent social worker, each of whom was not involved with plaintiff’s

mental health treatment prior to the hearing. Plaintiff was also provided with an inmate

advocate to assist her with the process. Prior to each hearing, plaintiff was advised of

her rights and given the opportunity to suspend medication on the date of the hearing. 

Plaintiff chose not to attend her February 8, 2011 IMC hearing. Bethany Ritter,

BSN, plaintiff’s inmate advocate, attended the hearing and advocated plaintiff’s

position. Dr. Nalluri testified concerning plaintiff’s mental health and need for

medication. The IMC unanimously determined that plaintiff should be administered

medication for up to 30 days. On March 9, 2011, the day of plaintiff’s 30-day review

hearing, plaintiff’s anger escalated dramatically, and the IMC determined that plaintiff’s

attendance at the hearing would jeopardize the safety of the participants. Plaintiff was

not permitted to attend the meeting. Nurse Ritter attended the hearing, however, and

advocated on behalf of plaintiff. On September 7, 2011, at the 180-day hearing, plaintiff

actively participated. The IMC again determined that plaintiff should be administered

psychotropic medication for up to 180 days. 

3

Case: 2:12-cv-00215-GLF-MRA Doc #: 41 Filed: 07/26/13 Page: 3 of 10 PAGEID #: <pageID>
Plaintiff alleges that Dr. Burke denied her appeals and Warden Trim did not

respond to her appeals. She maintains that she was administered medication based on

Dr. Nalluri’s lies and as a form of punishment. Defendants contend that the decisions of

the IMC and defendants to medicate plaintiff involuntarily were made after careful

consideration and review of the medical evidence. Defendants further maintain that

plaintiff was afforded all the procedural protections that were due. 

B. Plaintiff

Plaintiff filed a motion requesting that the Court deny defendants’ motion for

summary judgment, but she failed to submit any evidence on behalf of her response or

make any legal arguments as to why summary judgment was not appropriate.

III. Summary Judgment

Summary judgment shall be granted “if the movant shows that there is no

genuine dispute as to any material fact and the movant is entitled to judgment as a

matter of law.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 56(a). A party asserting the absence or presence of a

genuine dispute must support that assertion by either “(A) citing to particular parts of

materials in the record, including depositions, documents, electronically stored

information, affidavits or declarations, stipulations (including those made for purposes

of the motion only), admissions, interrogatory answers, or other materials”; or “(B)

showing that the materials cited do not establish the absence or presence of a genuine

dispute, or that an adverse party cannot produce admissible evidence to support the

fact.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 56(c)(1).

4

Case: 2:12-cv-00215-GLF-MRA Doc #: 41 Filed: 07/26/13 Page: 4 of 10 PAGEID #: <pageID>
A party may object that the cited material “cannot be presented in a form that

would be admissible in evidence,” and “[t]he burden is on the proponent to show that

the material is admissible as presented or to explain the admissible form that is

anticipated.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 56(c)(2); Fed. R. Civ. P. 56 advisory committee’s note. If a

party uses an affidavit or declaration to support or oppose a motion, such affidavit or

declaration “must be made on personal knowledge, set out facts that would be

admissible in evidence, and show that the affiant or declarant is competent to testify on

the matters stated.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 56(c)(4).

While the court must consider the cited materials, it may also consider other

materials in the record. Fed. R. Civ. P. 56(c)(3). However, “[i]n considering a motion for

summary judgment, the district court must construe the evidence and draw all

reasonable inferences in favor of the nonmoving party.” Revis v. Meldrum, 489 F.3d 273,

279 (6th Cir. 2007) (citing Matsushita Elec. Indus. Co. v. Zenith Radio Corp., 475 U.S. 574,

587 (1986)). “The central issue is ‘whether the evidence presents a sufficient

disagreement to require submission to a jury or whether it is so one-sided that one party

must prevail as a matter of law.’” Id., 489 F.3d at 279–80 (citing Anderson v. Liberty Lobby,

Inc., 477 U.S. 242, 251–52 (1986)).

IV. Discussion

In Washington v. Harper, 494 U.S. 210, 227 (1990), the United States Supreme Court

held that “given the requirements of the prison environment, the Due Process Clause

permits the State to treat a prison inmate who has a serious mental illness with

5

Case: 2:12-cv-00215-GLF-MRA Doc #: 41 Filed: 07/26/13 Page: 5 of 10 PAGEID #: <pageID>
antipsychotic drugs against his will, if the inmate is dangerous to himself or others and

the treatment is in the inmate's medical interest.” Before an inmate is involuntarily

medicated, due process requires notice of a hearing and a meaningful opportunity to be

heard. Id. at 228-29. Due process does not require a judicial decisionmaker. Rather, the

decision to involuntarily medicate a prisoner may be made by medical professionals

and corrections officials. Id.

Ohio Department of Rehabilitation and Correction Policy 67-MNH-07 provides

that an inmate with a documented serious illness who refuses voluntary treatment may

be involuntarily medicated after a hearing by a panel of three mental health

professionals consisting of at least one psychiatrist and one psychologist or licensed

independent social worker. See doc. 34-22. The inmate has a right to be present and to

offer relevant evidence, including a right to present testimony and call witnesses,

concerning the necessity of treatment. Id. Involuntary medication may be approved

only if it is demonstrated by clear and convincing evidence that the inmate suffers from

a serious mental illness and as a result of the illness there is a substantial likelihood of

serious harm to himself or others, significant property damage, or that the inmate is

gravely disabled if he is not medicated. Id.

Under Turner v. Safley, U.S. 78, 89 (1987), the standard for determining whether

prison regulation infringes an inmate’s constitutional rights is whether the regulation is

reasonably related to legitimate penological interests. An inmate, such as plaintiff,

possesses a significant liberty interest in avoiding the unwanted administration of

6

Case: 2:12-cv-00215-GLF-MRA Doc #: 41 Filed: 07/26/13 Page: 6 of 10 PAGEID #: <pageID>
psychotropic medication. However, the Fourteenth Amendment does allow the State to

treat an inmate who has a serious mental illness with medication against her will if the

inmate is a danger to herself or others and the treatment is in her medical interest. A

prison has a legitimate government interest in the safety of its staff and inmates.

When a liberty interest is at stake–such as the interest in not being subject to

involuntary medication–an inmate is entitled to due process protections. Procedural

due process requires the State to provide an inmate with notice and opportunity to be

heard at a meaningful time and in a meaningful manner.

ODRC Policy 67-MNH-07 provides plaintiff with sufficient procedural

safeguards. Dr. Nalluri submitted an Involuntary Medication Request Form prior to

convening each IMC. Docs. 34-1, 34-2, 34-3, 34-4. Plaintiff was provided an Involuntary

Medication Hearing with a 30-day and a 180-day review. Docs. 34-13, 34-14, 34-15.

Plaintiff was advised of all hearings in writing more than 24 hours prior to each

hearing. Plaintiff was permitted the right to suspend medication during each hearings.

Docs. 34-6, 34-7, 34-9, 34-10, 34-12. 

Although plaintiff alleges that she was not permitted to attend the February 8

and March 9, 2011 hearings, plaintiff did not offer any evidence to support this

allegation. Defendants, on the other hand, documented plaintiff’s decision not to attend

the February 8 hearing. Doc. 34-14. Plaintiff was not permitted to attend the March 9

hearing due to her escalating behavior. Docs. 34-1, 34-13, 34-16, 34-19. ODRC Policy 67-

MNH-07 authorized defendants to limit plaintiff’s right to be present for reasons related

7

Case: 2:12-cv-00215-GLF-MRA Doc #: 41 Filed: 07/26/13 Page: 7 of 10 PAGEID #: <pageID>
to institutional security and order. See doc. 34-22. Plaintiff failed to avail herself of the

right to request witnesses to testify. 

Defendants did not violate plaintiff’s substantive due process right to refuse

medical treatment. Dr. Nalluri requested that plaintiff be treated with medication to

control her mental illness. Doc. 34-1. Plaintiff is diagnosed with schizoaffective disorder

and experiences mood swings and psychosis. Id. Plaintiff is also diagnosed with

antisocial personality disorder, which causes her to engage in assaultive and aggressive

behavior, mood swings, delusions of grandiosity, mania and psychosis. Id. When

plaintiff is not medicated, she cannot function in the general prison population or

perform activities of daily living. Id. Defendants maintain that plaintiff poses a danger

to herself as evidenced by her deterioration of her self-care and because of her past

history of suicide attempts and threats. Id. Plaintiff is also a threat to others as

evidenced by aggressive and assaultive behavior. Id. She is incarcerated for murder, and

she has assaulted ORW correction officers. Id. Plaintiff has not come forth with any

evidence to support her assertion that Dr. Nalluri lied. Therefore, I RECOMMEND that

defendants’ motion for summary judgment be GRANTED.

Plaintiff has failed to state a claim against defendants Trim and Burke. The

complaint fails to contain any factual allegations of unconstitutional conduct on the part

of Warden Trim or Dr. Burke. The complaint alleges that Trim failed to respond to

plaintiff’s appeal and neglected her duty to listen to the tapes and make a decision.

Under ODRC Policy 67-MNH-07, the warden does not have an active role in the

8

Case: 2:12-cv-00215-GLF-MRA Doc #: 41 Filed: 07/26/13 Page: 8 of 10 PAGEID #: <pageID>
involuntary medication proceedings Either the Director of Clinical Services or the

physician designee decides appeals under the policy. Dr. Burke, the Director of Clinical

Services, affirmed the IMC’s September 7, 2011 decision to administer her medication

after reviewing the decision and the record. The complaint does not allege any

constitutional violations by Dr. Burke, nor does it allege that the appeals policy for IMC

decisions is unconstitutional. 

The Magistrate Judge RECOMMENDS that defendant Nicastro be DISMISSED

pursuant to Rule 4(m) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. 

V. Conclusion

For the reasons stated above, the Magistrate Judge RECOMMENDS that the State

of Ohio and defendants Genine Trim, Dr. Suseela Nalluri, Dr. Christy Tinch, Dr.

Edmund Burke, Erin Maldonado, Bethany Ritter, and Dr. Sheila Tano’s April 19, 2013

motion for summary judgment (doc. 34) be GRANTED. 

If any party objects to this Report and Recommendation, that party may, within

fourteen (14) days, file and serve on all parties a motion for reconsideration by the

Court, specifically designating this Report and Recommendation, and the part thereof

in question, as well as the basis for objection thereto. 28 U.S.C. §636(b)(1)(B); Rule 72(b),

Fed. R. Civ. P.

The parties are specifically advised that failure to object to the Report and

Recommendation will result in a waiver of the right to de novo review by the District

Judge and waiver of the right to appeal the judgment of the District Court. Thomas v.

9

Case: 2:12-cv-00215-GLF-MRA Doc #: 41 Filed: 07/26/13 Page: 9 of 10 PAGEID #: <pageID>
Arn, 474 U.S. 140, 150-152 (1985); United States v. Walters, 638 F.2d 947 (6th Cir. 1981);

United States v. Sullivan, 431 F.3d 976, 984 (6th Cir. 2005); Miller v. Currie, 50 F.3d 373,

380 (6th Cir. 1995). Even when timely objections are filed, appellate review of issues not

raised in those objections is waived. Willis v. Sullivan, 931 F.2d 390, 401 (6th Cir. 1991).

s/Mark R. Abel 

United States Magistrate Judge

10

Case: 2:12-cv-00215-GLF-MRA Doc #: 41 Filed: 07/26/13 Page: 10 of 10 PAGEID #: <pageID>